This has been asked before but I’ll try again, what evidence?
Ahhh, the Left’s favorite new buzzphrase, trying so hard to appease the radicals and not scare the moderates. I suspect it fails on both counts.
I don’t know for sure, but its possible that my background investigation was more through. I don’t think the FBI just said, “Hey, we tried to reach someone for all of a couple days but didn’t connect, so case closed!”
Well, I certainly can guess why you DON’T want an investigation done.
I’ve told you that repeatedly, in multiple threads. Not sure I can fight “willful”.
And I can guess why you and your colleagues do. Is that the game we’re going to play now: Guessing at each other’s motives?
I have no idea what this means. How does the whole of the “Left” appease various factions within it? Anyway, since you didn’t address what I said, do you agree then that should impeachment proceedings begin, there should be a thorough investigation this time?
And it’s been answered before. The water’s right there, buddy, for whenever you choose to drink.
LOL! Precisely the evasion I expected, and right on cue. Good show, good sir.
In case my position wasn’t clear, I think there have already been several investigations of Kavanaugh’s background. He might well be the most thoroughly-investigated SCOTUS justice we’ve ever had.
If the dems in the House decide to “begin impeachment proceedings” against Justice Kavanaugh I suppose they can do it however they like. It appears, thus far at least, they’ve chosen not to. Maybe you should write your Congresscritter about that.
Let’s make a bet. I bet that I can link to an existing thread where I have provided an answer to this question for you. You, based on your claim that this is an evasion, will presumably bet that I cannot. Now let’s decide what humiliating thing you have to do if I win the bet.
Does “most thoroughly-investigated” equate to full thoroughness? If so, we disagree. If not, how about one that* is *thorough this time and has no arbitrary time frame.
I bet you can link to a thread or two where you think you answered the question, and wherein your “answers” fell flat on their faces with a cursory bit of examination. Were those the threads you had in mind?
Actually, of the SCOTUS justices who have attempted to rape someone, he is the least investigated.
You seem to be backpedaling pretty quickly from your “evasion” claim. Since you have the same amount of data available to you now as you had at the time you made the claim, that means you knew it was false when you made it…
Not at all. I think “evasion” is precisely the correct word to use to describe your post #244. I asked you a simple and direct question:
“What, in your mind, is the “strong evidence” that Justice Kavanaugh lied to Congress?”
You did not answer it. I suspect you’re afraid you’ll get embarrassed again if you try, and I don’t blame you. You’re probably correct to hold that fear.
You and I both know that “I’ve already told you that, repeatedly” is in fact an answer. And, based on your backpedaling, you also know it’s an accurate answer. And, in fact, your backpedaling proves that you know I can prove the “already," “told you,” and "repeatedly” claims.
All that’s left for you now is to apologize…
You’re going to be waiting a long time then, because that’s not even remotely close to my understanding. You have never provided anything even remotely resembling “strong evidence” that Justice Kavanaugh lied to Congress. IIRC you tried a couple of times, and both attempts were embarrassing failures. Linking to them now would probably provide me many hearty laughs, so why don’t you go ahead and do that.
In fairness to me, though, you once managed to read an entire report on evidence of racial bias in policing in Ferguson without finding any evidence of racial bias of policing in Ferguson, so the bar for providing you evidence of things that conflict with your worldview is pretty high.
Sure! Guess at mine. Go first, have a blast.
Can’t the chair of an appropriate committee just send off a letter to whomever ran the investigation? But really, none of this changes the fact that officially starting some investigation still looks like a do over, no matter how good your reason. Frankly, I don’t really think your reasons are that good. I really don’t care if he fudged on exactly how much he drank or how much of a campus rumor the story was. The minimal investigation that already happened was enough to show he was a drunken lout in early adulthood and his testimony showed that he is currently somewhat of a hotheaded jackass. But he still got confirmed. The game is over.